The way I understand the objection it that YC promotes “building great products”, which attracts (a lot of) certain kinds of founders, but in fact YC is optimizing for something else (primarily described in Black Swan Farming, confirmed by other sources). I believe they are quite value-additive to the companies they accept, but attract more founders than if they were “honest about their optimization function”, where some founders could have been better off engaging with other VCs on possibly better terms.
Either it matters a lot for a good startup’s success, or it doesn’t.
If it does, then the gatekeeper narrative is true. If it doesn’t, then how exactly isn’t it a scam?
This is such an obvious point that I’m worried that I’m confused about what’s really going on in this conversation.
Improving a startup’s chance of success, which can also be improved in other ways, doesn’t make YC a gatekeeper or a scam.
The way I understand the objection it that YC promotes “building great products”, which attracts (a lot of) certain kinds of founders, but in fact YC is optimizing for something else (primarily described in Black Swan Farming, confirmed by other sources). I believe they are quite value-additive to the companies they accept, but attract more founders than if they were “honest about their optimization function”, where some founders could have been better off engaging with other VCs on possibly better terms.
All VCs are black swan farming. It is the only model that makes sense as a VC firm.